Senate votes to save the Navy’s plans for pushing biofuels

posted at 2:41 pm on November 30, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

During this trying fiscal time, when we’re bumping up against our debt ceiling and facing monstrously huge unfunded liabilities, and when any sane person can acknowledge that deep cuts to the national budget must be made, it’s comforting to know that we can at least come together and agree to shave off some of the more out-there, experimental, subsidy-type proposals that we really don’t need.

I jest, of course.

Despite the Pentagon’s dire predictions about the disastrous implications of the sudden budget cuts that will come with sequestration, the Navy has been formulating plans to eventually dispatch a fleet run on biofuels — which happen to be vastly more expensive than their traditional fuel supplies. Wired explains:

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus trumpeted the program as key to service’s long-term stability, pledging $170 million to kickstart the wobbly biofuel industry, promising to get half the Navy’s fuel from alternative sources by 2020, and making plans to dispatch an eco-friendly “Great Green Fleet” in 2016.

But the ambitious plan appeared to be all but dead in May. Some Congressmen were ticked off by the $15 per-gallon price — four times the going rate for old-school fuel — and wary of the White House’s interest in green technologies after the meltdown of Solyndra, the administration-friendly solar firm. Nor did key lawmakers much care for Mabus’ push for the alternative fuels at a time when the budgets for ships and sailors were rapidly shrinking. A little-noticed Defense Department report surfaced showing that the Navy could spend as much as an extra $1.76 billion per year on biofuel.

If biofuels really are the way of the future, then great, but the Obama administration seems imperturbably convinced that it’s up to them to immediately force fruition out of the endeavor. If biofuels have the ability to become competitive, they’ll be just fine, and subsidies and special treatment are no way to encourage price efficiency — most especially when we have absolutely no money left in the coffers for this kind of stuff. But, of course, all fledgling-and-failing green industries have their lobbies, ergo… via Reuters:

The Senate voted 62-37 to remove language in the National Defense Authorization Act that would have barred the military from buying the controversial alternative fuels if they cost more than petroleum. …

“This would have been a terrible signal to private investors if there had been a pullback from this program because what we all want is for these advanced biofuels to become commercialized and therefore cost competitive,” said Phyllis Cuttino, director of Clean Energy Program at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has set a goal of using biofuels to supply about half the Navy’s non-nuclear fuel needs by 2020, about 8 million barrels a year.

The House will have to reconcile their own version of the NDAA with the Senate’s, and the removal of the biofuels-restricting provision will likely be the subject of a little more frugal scrutiny in the Republican-controlled chamber, especially since the program was one that Obama praised as part of his administration’s widespread greenifying-efforts — but get ready to see a lot more of these expensive, under-the-radar, green pet projects coming out of the White House in Obama’s second term.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The entirety of Washington DC needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt.

darwin on November 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The New Effeminate Military Generals seen nodding in approval. Also see, Petreus.

Mr. Arrogant on November 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM

What exactly is the point of biofuels? They are as dirty as oil, they are more expensive, they emit as much CO2, we have plenty of oil beneath our land and ocean, so again, what is the point?

All I can think of is an irrational loathing on the Left for oil and gas companies.

Charlemagne on November 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Yay, more subsidies/mandates/earmarks for something the market rejects time and time again.

Mohonri on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The entirety of Washington DC needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt.

darwin on November 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM

No reason to rebuild it. Keep Congress critters in their home office and when votes need to occur use online meeting software.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

…and coal is still being shipped to the German barracks…the gov’t is totally inept.

Starve your politicians. They will ruin you, from the left, to the right.

Schadenfreude on November 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

If we redefine biofuels to include nuclear, than I’m all for it.

dczombie on November 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

No reason to rebuild it.
chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

True.

the_nile on November 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

What exactly is the point of biofuels? They are as dirty as oil, they are more expensive, they emit as much CO2, we have plenty of oil beneath our land and ocean, so again, what is the point?

All I can think of is an irrational loathing on the Left for oil and gas companies.

Charlemagne on November 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM

To use up our corn supply rather than wasting on making food ceap and plentiful.

rbj on November 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Forward! Cost and vidal natural resources means nothing.

We really don’t deserve these stupidities from congress.

plutorocks on November 30, 2012 at 2:59 PM

15 bucks a gallon? Makes perfect sense in Obama’s world. The whole lot of them need to go. Malbus is a sell out.

major dad on November 30, 2012 at 2:59 PM

No reason to rebuild it. Keep Congress critters in their home office and when votes need to occur use online meeting software.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Tell me about it. There are all these federal agencies who fly people around and put them up in hotels when they can just as easily use the telephone/video conferencing, email, etc. But no. They rather spend tens of thousands of dollars on BS.

Blake on November 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Well isn’t this just dandy? More corn will be used for fuel than food? Guess what happens, food prices go through the roof and soon only the ones on food stamps and rich will be about to buy?

I am serious, is there a handfull for functioning brain cells in all of dc making laws and voting for this? I will answer my question, NOT many!
L

letget on November 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Why does the Navy need biofuel? We’ve got these things called aircraft carriers that these things called aeroplanes land upon.

Christien on November 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Sure–$15 a gallon for a biofuel vs $4 a gallon. Save us those big bucks, Congress! /snark

It takes more energy to create a gallon of corn petrol…er, biofuel…than that gallon puts out. We can’t so much as break even on the deal. And what does that stuff do to the engines of the ships and jets using it? In cars, corn petrol booze trashes the engines, taking many thousands of miles off the life of the car.

There is no increase in range for the ships or planes, either.

But hey! Let the Dems have their thing as they want it. When half the Navy is in dock getting overhauled, and half the Navy and Marine aviators are grounded for lack of functioning jet engines, maybe Congress will take a look into the matter.

Then they’ll throw more money at it, in a ‘cost saving’ measure.

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM

*rubs hands together*

Project “Let It Burn” proceeding as expected.

Midas on November 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM

One more step to an ecologically-sound Navy whose ships run purely on wind; there’s a lot of wind out at sea that can be utilized. Columbus and Magellan committed their great feats using wind, were they so wrong?

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Columbus and Magellan committed their great feats using wind, were they so wrong?

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

lol, hf!

Midas on November 30, 2012 at 3:05 PM

One more step to an ecologically-sound Navy whose ships run purely on wind; there’s a lot of wind out at sea that can be utilized. Columbus and Magellan committed their great feats using wind, were they so wrong?

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

There’s more wind in Congress.

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 3:05 PM

guess this explains the new $200 million biofuel plant being built by ADM. More cronyism. Who on our side voted for this crap?

DanMan on November 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I love the smell of napalm french fries in the morning…It smells like victory.

Christien on November 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus trumpeted the program as key to service’s long-term stability, pledging $170 million to kickstart the wobbly biofuel industry,

Meanwhile, in the real defense industry — you know, the one where technology is developed to actually engage and defeat adversaries, people are having difficulty finding funding for $200K to $1M development activities that will actually lead to tactical advantage in the future. But by golly, we’ll spend $170M to get $15/gallon fuel!

/Remember when people were all up in arms over $200 hammers (because of some silly accounting nonsense)? But $15/gallon fuel is just peachy.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Why does the Navy need biofuel? We’ve got these things called aircraft carriers that these things called aeroplanes land upon.

Christien on November 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Aren’t carriers nuclear powered? Why can’t we make other ships likewise?

Mitoch55 on November 30, 2012 at 3:10 PM

No reason to rebuild it. Keep Congress critters in their home office and when votes need to occur use online meeting software.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

That’s a terrific thought. Since it usually takes face to face meetings for effective results, this will require lobbyists to fan out over 50 states instead of being able to operate from a single malignant block in D.C.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:11 PM

The purpose of the military is to destroy our enemies, and we are fielding eco friendly forces?
How is the research on green bombs going, which spread wildflowers and grass seeds?

redshirt on November 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM

The entirety of Washington DC needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt.

darwin on November 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM

No reason to rebuild it. Keep Congress critters in their home office and when votes need to occur use online meeting software.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Some of the museums are nice, let’s not burn those.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM

One more step to an ecologically-sound Navy whose ships run purely on wind; there’s a lot of wind out at sea that can be utilized. Columbus and Magellan committed their great feats using wind, were they so wrong? – Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Naval warfare has come a long way since Nelson’s fleet at Trafalgar in 1805.

SC.Charlie on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Fund research into the development of an engine that runs on raw sewage. With 3000+ guys on board, they’ve got a steady supply of fuel.

Dexter_Alarius on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

One more step to an ecologically-sound Navy whose ships run purely on wind; there’s a lot of wind out at sea that can be utilized. Columbus and Magellan committed their great feats using wind, were they so wrong?

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

You beat me to it, Bishop. I was just going to say, we should return to the great sailing ships of the 18th century. What could be more “green” and “eco-friendly” than that for our Navy?

gravityman on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Obama is just redistributing defense $$ to his union cronies.

It’s that simple.

faraway on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

No reason to rebuild it. Keep Congress critters in their home office and when votes need to occur use online meeting software.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

What–remove those private, unrecorded closed-door deals made in the Congressional cloakroom?

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Some of the museums are nice, let’s not burn those.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM

But if we burn them all down, then somebody will have to rebuild them, and that will mean new jobs, right??? /s

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I have no problem with Ethanol being supplied to our troops.

As long as they use it for mixing cocktails, not to fuel their ships.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM

They even paid ~ $240 a gallon for some of the biofuel.

I always found it curious that the name Mabus figures prominently in Nostradamus’ prophecies about the anti-Christ.

I don’t think that Mabus rates quite that high in the Evil department… But still, it is interesting from a ‘coincidence’ standpoint, Delia.

LegendHasIt on November 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM

The purpose of the military is to destroy our enemies, and we are fielding eco friendly forces?
How is the research on green bombs going, which spread wildflowers and grass seeds?

redshirt on November 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Don’t laugh too loud there. Do a search on military lead-free bullets and green munitions.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM

guess this explains the new $200 million biofuel plant being built by ADM. More cronyism. Who on our side voted for this crap?

DanMan on November 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Yup , this is just a crony scam.

the_nile on November 30, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Naval warfare has come a long way since Nelson’s fleet at Trafalgar in 1805.

SC.Charlie on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Surely you are not implying that a 100 gun broadside from a triple gun-deck Man-O-War is not sufficient firepower for modern naval warfare!

Are you saying that modern navies don’t still use the “Line” as standard naval strategy?!

gravityman on November 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM

But if we burn them all down, then somebody will have to rebuild them, and that will mean new jobs, right??? /s

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Of course! How silly can I be! Broken windows and all that.

And why not an alien invasion like Paul Krugman suggested! That would do wonders to save the economy! ~S~

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Who on our side voted for this crap?

DanMan on November 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I believe John Thune was one.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:22 PM

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Of course! How silly can I be! Broken windows and all that.

And why not an alien invasion like Paul Krugman suggested! That would do wonders to save the economy! ~S~

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:21 PM

BWAHAHAHAH… I think the Alien invasion is already here…

Dorian Grey ‏@doriangrey_grey

@chuckdevore That aint no spider, that’s an Alien from Betelgeuse…

http://twitpic.com/bhve1b

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Well, then, I guess we need not worry about any “fiscal cliff” huh?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Well, then, I guess we need not worry about any “fiscal cliff” huh?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Nope, but we damn well better start worrying about the availability of Raid…

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Surely you are not implying that a 100 gun broadside from a triple gun-deck Man-O-War is not sufficient firepower for modern naval warfare!

Are you saying that modern navies don’t still use the “Line” as standard naval strategy?! – gravityman on November 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM

We are more likely to use horses and bayonets than such tactics as you mention.

SC.Charlie on November 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

If the GOP had any clue regarding PR, this is something that could be killed. Tell the right about the cost, tell the left about the extra money being spent on the military.

If only…

AndrewsDad on November 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM

In my humble opinion the Arab Gulf States should be fueling our naval vessels for free.

SC.Charlie on November 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Translation: Obama administration sends yet another in a continuing series of overt signals to the rest of the world, and in particular our enemies, that the U.S.A. and its military are rapidly descending into paper tiger status — already filled with emasculated and infantilized “leaders”, from the top down …

ShainS on November 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Whats a few more billion dollars of China’s money?

tommer74 on November 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I say we bomb the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

hachiban on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Hey. If we can generate 1.2 gigawatts from a banana peel and stale beer, why not.

Jabberwock on November 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM

@chuckdevore That aint no spider, that’s an Alien from Betelgeuse…

http://twitpic.com/bhve1b

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Funny, there was a Kornbluth (I think) novel from the 50′s/early 60′s called “The Night Spiders” that was about something like that.

It was a thoroughly forgettable and boring novel. 200 pages of nothing happening, just kind of a dread foreshadowing of a forboding event that never ever really occurred.

/I read it back when I still thought that once one started a book, one should finish it. It was a wasted afternoon.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I read it back when I still thought that once one started a book, one should finish it. It was a wasted afternoon.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You read 200 pages of a bad book in one afternoon?

That’s pretty good. I would have fallen asleep long before I got that far.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

We need to have perspective here. It does not require the use of the more expensive fuels.

Looking at this from a National Security standpoint, if we are generating the fuels from American bio-fuel sources, it is better than fuel made from foreign sources of oil.

Not supportive of the economics in this…but in all actuality it removes a barrier to the Navy using the fuel of their choice.

Looks about like 11 Republicans voting with 1 not voting at all.

I guess I don’t see this as the end of the world. If Obama gets his way, regular fuel will be more expensive in the future than the bio-fuel and we would have to lift this restriction anyways.

weaselyone on November 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

This is exactly the kind of hardball the Republicans should be playing. As long as deficits are so huge and DOD is being cut, spending on a huge biofuels program should be killed dead.

It’s an easy vote to explain to the public. If we’re having to negotiate over a fiscal cliff, then we can’t afford this boondoggle.

tom on November 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM

What exactly is the point of biofuels?
Charlemagne on November 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Renewable. Oil is finite, we are well past peak oil and what is left will last only a few more days. Bio-fuel is freely given to us by the great g-d Gaia and we don’t have to rape the land to get it. Well at least we don’t have to penetrate Gaia. Well not much anyway. Drilling for oil also is way more dangerous. There are earth quakes cause by its removal. There is massive damage from oil spills because it’s only natural, good and clean when underground. It’s a nasty, vile pollutant when removed from the ground. Most importantly growing bio-fuel on the surface is very, very safe. We are drilling deeper and deeper every day and sooner or later we will penetrate into the Empire of the Mole Men and when that happens, well, we are truly screwed.

Frank Enstine on November 30, 2012 at 4:22 PM

get ready to see a lot more of these expensive, under-the-radar, green pet projects coming out of the White House in Obama’s second term.

Good. They’re perfect targets for budget cuts that the entire country would actually get behind.

tom on November 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM

That’s pretty good. I would have fallen asleep long before I got that far.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Back in the day, I used to read a novel in an afternoon. I’d go to the local library after finals were over and check out a stack of sci-fi for reading during the Christmas break.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

We’re being played.
The House should pass a short bill that does the following:
Eliminate funding for DHS. DoE, DoEd, TSA, ATF, and cuts appropriations for all other departments by 50%.
It should also require, for any rise in the debt ceiling, an equal cut in spending.
The bill should be no more than 500 words which even most congresspeople could understand.
Then adjourn and go home. Period.
Pain now or later…no way out…but this gives us a shot at preserving the Republic.
Copy and send this to Speaker Boehner or call his office.
Let it burn.

dirtengineer on November 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

The entirety of Washington DC needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt.

darwin on November 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM

No reason to rebuild it. Keep Congress critters in their home office and when votes need to occur use online meeting software.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Give the greenies what they want and fill the tide pools and let DC revert back to the swamp Ma Nature intended it to be. Maybe the founding fathers knew the future when they built DC on a swamp.

Bevan on November 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Make these idiot legislators use biofuels to run their personal vehicles and heat their personal homes without increasing their salaries.

SC.Charlie on November 30, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Make these idiot legislators use biofuels to run their personal vehicles and heat their personal homes without increasing their salaries.

SC.Charlie on November 30, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Last I knew they pull down 174k per year plus benefits. I don’t think they would care much about a little extra cost for fuel.

Frank Enstine on November 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Last I knew they pull down 174k per year plus benefits. I don’t think they would care much about a little extra cost for fuel.

Frank Enstine on November 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I guarantee you, when it is their money, they care about every penny.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Someone else may have mentioned this already, but I believe the Navy’s biofuel program has nothing to do with the green initiative and everything to do with developing alternative sources of fuel in the event petroleum is scarce during wartime.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Someone else may have mentioned this already, but I believe the Navy’s biofuel program has nothing to do with the green initiative and everything to do with developing alternative sources of fuel in the event petroleum is scarce during wartime.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

If that’s true that it would behoove them to look into a source that can’t burn down, doesn’t have a growing season, can’t fail during adverse weather and doesn’t need large tracks of land. Perhaps the synthetic fuel being talked about lately would be a better source. The Navy has nukes for electric power and we have large amounts of coal. To me this stinks of politically correct tree hugging rather than a serious effort to find alternative fuel.

Frank Enstine on November 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Someone else may have mentioned this already, but I believe the Navy’s biofuel program has nothing to do with the green initiative and everything to do with developing alternative sources of fuel in the event petroleum is scarce during wartime.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Those were my thoughts initially too, but it doesn’t make sense. It would have been easier to just amend Section 313 to allow for use of other fuels during War Time or supply issues. This bill still does not require the use of bio-fuels, it only allows it.

In the end, I am starting to agree with the Senate’s decision on this one, even though it is a pure political play to bio-fuel producers. I don’t think the Senate has any business limiting the sources of fuel for our military, it doesn’t make sense national defense wise. The military will still have to operate within the budget constraints that are set by Congress. If they spend more on fuel, they will have to cut elsewhere, or Congress will have to appropriate more spending.

weaselyone on November 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Someone else may have mentioned this already, but I believe the Navy’s biofuel program has nothing to do with the green initiative and everything to do with developing alternative sources of fuel in the event petroleum is scarce during wartime.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Wherever I’ve seen this initiative reported, it’s always been as a “green initiative”. As others have said, the source for these fuels requires resources way beyond that needed to obtain oil or coal. One can also assume that food and material for shelter will be scarce in wartime as well; using those resources for fuel would make no sense.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Of course they do.
There’s nothing so fuelish as a Senate full of Old Fuels.

Another Drew on November 30, 2012 at 5:30 PM

This “biofuel” idiocy is subordinating the efficiency and efficacy of our military to a liberal pipe dream. By doing so it endangers all of us, needlessly flushes our national treasure down the phony “Global Warming” rathole, and marks the US as a nation run by fools.

At most, there should be a very limited experiment to determine if we could use “biofuels” if our supply of REAL fuels were to be disrupted. Unless the goal is to cripple and/or destroy our own military, there is absolutely NO REASON to pay 10 times as much for fuel as we have to!!!

This kind of effort should be 100% left to the military (probably under the supervision of DARPA), and Congress…and all other enemies of the USA… should BUTT OUT!!!

landlines on November 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Someone else may have mentioned this already, but I believe the Navy’s biofuel program has nothing to do with the green initiative and everything to do with developing alternative sources of fuel in the event petroleum is scarce during wartime.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

That’s the purpose of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

itsspideyman on November 30, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Green projects are almost entirely kicked off by rent seekers.

Their lobby donates heavily to the Democrats. The politicians get paid off, the investors get their chunk of public cheese, and the Sierra Club phonies get tingles.

Triple Win.

CorporatePiggy on November 30, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Either the Navy burns biofuel or parks a few of the carriers and associated aircraft. Choose wisely.

TulsAmerican on November 30, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Just this week AAA petitioned the EPA to relent on its demand that biofuels be mandated for used in cars. AAA cited that the EPA biofuel mix destroys automobile engines. But I’M SURE that the Navy’s turbine engines are much LESS SENSITIVE than the engine in my Toyota when it comes to those kind of things…

Maybe this is all part of The Won’s downsizing of the Navy. If the engines are destroyed then he can have the hulls towed to the nearest drydock and the ships can be cut up and sold for scrap.

in_awe on November 30, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Well so much for spending cuts! Taxing the wealthy will not even pay for this boondoggle much less the deficit. The middle class are next on the list.

savage24 on November 30, 2012 at 9:46 PM

…I D I O T S…!!!

KOOLAID2 on November 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Conveniently, the biofuels are made by companies in Hawaii and Illinois (and their subsidiaries) with ties to Obama. Several of the “entrepreneurs” involved are alumni of the Punahou School.

The whole thing — the whole thing — is an unnecessary expenditure, and it makes running the “green fleet” far more costly than it would be if the Navy just bought regular avgas and marine fuel. This program isn’t getting value for the dollar. It’s a complete waste.

If George W. Bush had ever done anything remotely like this, the press would still be in the emergency room from the conniptions over it.

J.E. Dyer on December 1, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Couldn’t they just specify that CA be restricted to bio-fuels so the rest of the states can see how it works out ?? If the Navy uses bio-fuels, all we will get is “Yes it works” or “No it doesn’t”. If CA tests it, the people will give the Congress a sense of how they like dealing with the $26/gallon cost. Recently, they didn’t seem to mind $6/gal gas so, $26/gal might be okay.

KenInIL on December 1, 2012 at 5:04 AM

Meanwhile, China is building aircraft carriers….

nazo311 on December 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Meanwhile, China is building aircraft carriers… buying rusting hulks that the soviets gave up on from the Ukranians.

nazo311 on December 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Corrected free of charge.

Not that China shouldn’t be deeply concerning, but let’s not make the threat more than it is.

Alberta_Patriot on December 1, 2012 at 6:09 PM